Anomaly detection in the processing of complex syntax by early L2 learners

Abstract

This study investigates the processing of long-distance syntactic dependencies by native speakers of Slovenian (L1) who are advanced learners of Italian as a second language (L2), compared with monolingual Italian speakers. Using a self-paced reading task, we compare sensitivity of the early-acquired L2 learners to syntactic anomalies in their L2 in two empirical domains: (1) syntactic islands, for which the learners’ L1 and L2 grammars provide a converging characterization, and (2) verb–clitic constructions, for which the respective L1 and L2 grammatical descriptions diverge. We find that although our L2 learners show native-like processing patterns in the former, converging, grammatical domain, they may nevertheless perform non-native-like with respect to syntactic phenomena in which the L1 and L2 grammars do not align, despite the early age of L2 acquisition. Implications for theories of L2 acquisition and endstate are discussed.

L2 Knowledge of the Obligatory French Subjunctive: Offline Measures and Eye Tracking Compared

“…Specifically, while L2 (offline) knowledge of the subjunctive was consistently target-like, this was distinctly not the case for processing patterns. These findings are compatible with findings from a wide variety of L2 properties (see, e.g., Papadopoulou and Clahsen 2003 for relative clause attachment in Greek; Marinis et al 2005 for long-distance wh-dependencies in English; Shimanskaya and Slabakova 2017 for pronominal clitics in French; Stepanov et al 2019 for long-distance syntactic dependencies in English). Contra our initial predictions, the L1 did not appear to modulate sensitivity to mood-modality mismatches during real-time processing.…”

“…In terms of the L2 speakers, we expected their behaviour to be less clear cut but, most importantly, modulated by the L1 properties. First and foremost, we anticipated there to be a distinct asymmetry between offline (i.e., judgment) and online (i.e., eye movement) data, in light of previous research (cf., Papadopoulou and Clahsen 2003;Marinis et al 2005;Shimanskaya and Slabakova 2017;Stepanov et al 2019). Although we have argued that online knowledge may be modulated by underlying linguistic knowledge, it is likely that delayed lexical access and/or limited computational resources may prevent learners from applying this knowledge during real-time processing.…”